It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

[OpenGambit]

There are far too many people here, on both sides of the debate, who have no idea what the expression 'ad hominem' means.

I know I am doing something right when both sides don't like what I am telling them.

mods can ban me if they like, but there is no way I am going to put up with a bunch of whining babies who somehow think its my job to justify their position with awful legal interpretation.

 

[OpenGambit]

He seems to have more credibility in Romper Room than Laws/ Regulations/ HTA.

Considering his apparent profession, that can't be good..

Not sure what his point was with the rolleye at me for this:
"you should lead with this more, its very convincing..."

Why chop the balance of a paragraph that has significant context and content, pertinent to assisting those who may be on the fence with this thread.

I've tried to help him with a couple posts that would enhance his practice indicating a greater stance of professionalism, but he wasn't interested. Instead, two days later, thanking me by rolling eyes at me.

Doesn't seem to grasp that a person of his profession should have a greater command of proper English, or at least be open minded to learning it better if it is not his native tongue. Instead of: "an agenda with bad english comprehension" it should be: "an agenda with poor English comprehension".

You would think that in at least some, if not most circumstances, the key way a declamation is worded during a trial, could make or break the case.

Anyway..pretty much rhetorical..not looking for a reply from him or expecting a rational response...certainly not one without a fair amount of derisiveness and potential irony attached.

Says the guy that who thinks that insulting everyone is a good way to start a position on anything. You guys are just bad precedents waiting to happen.

In case you haven't noticed, I have never given out my number, disclosed my current practice or anything of the sort in order to promote myself. I am not, and was never here to sell my practice. If you want someone to tell you what you want to hear, call Bikelawyer up there, his fee will be way less than mine anyway.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I know I am doing something right when both sides don't like what I am telling them.

But one of the members, of one side, didn't seem to know what side he was on. He doesn't count.

 

[OpenGambit]

If anything this discussion has taught me that our Cops are adequately trained on the HTA.

 

[nesobriquet]

Says the guy that who thinks that insulting everyone is a good way to start a position on anything. You guys are just bad precedents waiting to happen.

In case you haven't noticed, I have never given out my number, disclosed my current practice or anything of the sort in order to promote myself. I am not, and was never here to sell my practice. If you want someone to tell you what you want to hear, call Bikelawyer up there, his fee will be way less than mine anyway.

Well you didn't disappoint, lol...hey, you even managed to cover both in the same sentence..touché.. go ahead, have last word.

 

[awyala]

If anything this discussion has taught me that our Cops are adequately trained on the HTA.

Maybe you're right....154 1(a) states you can never leave your lane, safely or otherwise. Practicable apparently means ALWAYS in your mind. It only means "feasible" to everyone else...but we can't possibly have any grasp of the English language cause we don't have some mysterious high paying practice, despite all signs indicating otherwise.

154 seems to also imply you can never drive on any line...so unless you can squeeze your car between the dashed lines, you are breaking the law to drive over a line. Oh silly me...."when ever practicable" means you can never leave your lane, and the discretion is not the driver's! Oops forgot that part.

So let's break it down Gambit style for everyone, so we are all on the same page:
154.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s154s1. --> (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic (any imaginable situation),
(a) a vehicle (vehicle here means any size vehicle is to be considered to be of the same dimensions as an SUV or contractors pick-up) shall be driven as nearly (God damn perfectly) as may be practicable (always without exception) entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until (never) the driver (a cop or Gambit allows you to) has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety (the term "safety" only applies to Gambit's interpretation of the term as he is the only one with the requisite education at Osgoode Hall to comprehend basic English, despite the HTA being publicly disseminated for public awareness);

(furthurmore Gambit decrees a cop's intrepretation, in all cases: "Failure to drive in a marked lane" adaquately paraphrases the above, and a justice, judge or court is not required, nor are his services, nor can you possibly afford his services given your low level of comprehension and income)


You do nothing for the stereotypical image of lawyers chum....wow...prototypical!

PS you sure spend a lot of your (self proclaimed) expensive time saying a whole lot of non-commital, non-helpful, useless nothing. Except for the self-aggrandizing of course, in your typical passive aggressive style.

Feel free to tag team in Rob when eye rolling emoticons and dissmissive one liners aren't having the desired effect.

 

[油井緋色]

There are far too many people here, on both sides of the debate, who have no idea what the expression 'ad hominem' means.

To attack a person's credibility or just straight up the person instead of the argument.

Anyway, guys, seriously, take your heads out of your *****. I don't understand why we're fighting amongst ourselves. Lane splitting/filtering/cutting in line/assholing whatever should straight up be legal. If you don't think it should be, then just go about your merry way, otherwise, think of some way to get the government to give us an okay.

Then we can work on knocking down the 50+ law.

Then we can work on getting an autobahn.

Of course, I played team games professionally for a few years....getting a random group of people to work together has always been nearly impossible or just a pain in the ***.

EDIT: If you got a motorcycle and don't wanna lane split all I can say is....wtf? Why aren't you in a SUV?

 

[OpenGambit]

Maybe you're right....154 1(a) states you can never leave your lane, safely or otherwise. Practicable apparently means ALWAYS in your mind. It only means "feasible" to everyone else...but we can't possibly have any grasp of the English language cause we don't have some mysterious high paying practice, despite all signs indicating otherwise.

154 seems to also imply you can never drive on any line...so unless you can squeeze your car between the dashed lines, you are breaking the law to drive over a line. Oh silly me...."when ever practicable" means you can never leave your lane, and the discretion is not the driver's! Oops forgot that part.

So let's break it down Gambit style for everyone, so we are all on the same page:
154.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s154s1. --> (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic (any imaginable situation),
(a) a vehicle (vehicle here means any size vehicle is to be considered to be of the same dimensions as an SUV or contractors pick-up) shall be driven as nearly (God damn perfectly) as may be practicable (always without exception) entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until (never) the driver (a cop or Gambit allows you to) has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety (the term "safety" only applies to Gambit's interpretation of the term as he is the only one with the requisite education at Osgoode Hall to comprehend basic English, despite the HTA being publicly disseminated for public awareness);

(furthurmore Gambit decrees a cop's intrepretation, in all cases: "Failure to drive in a marked lane" adaquately paraphrases the above, and a justice, judge or court is not required, nor are his services, nor can you possibly afford his services given your low level of comprehension and income)


You do nothing for the stereotypical image of lawyers chum....wow...prototypical!

PS you sure spend a lot of your (self proclaimed) expensive time saying a whole lot of non-commital, non-helpful, useless nothing. Except for the self-aggrandizing of course, in your typical passive aggressive style.

Feel free to tag team in Rob when eye rolling emoticons and dissmissive one liners aren't having the desired effect.

I didn't say that you can't leave your lane, I said you can't just drive down the street on the line.

Your interpretation would mean that a guy can drive permanantly down the 401 with the middle of his car down the line all day as long as the driver decided it was safe. that is a stupid interpretation.

Not to mention that driving on the line is a completely different thing as lane splitting or filtering.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

To attack a person's credibility or just straight up the person instead of the argument.

Anyway, guys, seriously, take your heads out of your *****. I don't understand why we're fighting amongst ourselves. Lane splitting/filtering/cutting in line/assholing whatever should straight up be legal. If you don't think it should be, then just go about your merry way, otherwise, think of some way to get the government to give us an okay.

Then we can work on knocking down the 50+ law.

Then we can work on getting an autobahn.

Of course, I played team games professionally for a few years....getting a random group of people to work together has always been nearly impossible or just a pain in the ***.

EDIT: If you got a motorcycle and don't wanna lane split all I can say is....wtf? Why aren't you in a SUV?

Congratulations. You've either read a book, or can use Google. Now if we could move away from that sort of flawed debate, we would be well ahead of the game.

When it comes to getting a large group of disparate people to co-operate on anything, you'll have better luck herding cats.

Here's the way that I see it: If motorcyclists routinely flout the law, then it gets other road users angry. To put the numbers in context in 2008 there were 191,572 motorcycles registered in Ontario. That same year there were 6,446,988 passenger vehicles registered in this Province. That's less than 3% even discounting the additional commercial vehicles, buses, and farm vehicles that take the total to over eight million. Most of those other road users are voters. When you get the electorate angry at you, you can forget about getting any sort of special privilege. Every person who splits or filters in traffic is actively working against your cause.

Being selfish serves no one. Not even the person who is being selfish, in the long run.

 

[awyala]

I didn't say that you can't leave your lane, I said you can't just drive down the street on the line.

Your interpretation would mean that a guy can drive permanantly down the 401 with the middle of his car down the line all day as long as the driver decided it was safe. that is a stupid interpretation.

Not to mention that driving on the line is a completely different thing as lane splitting or filtering.

A) there is no law that says you cant drive on the line. Neither you nor short hand jotting / attempted paraphrasing cop can change that.

B) a bike on the line is not the same as a car on the line...hence my hyperbole about how YOU and cops incorrectly view all vehicles as massive hunkers.

C) At no point has anyone in this thread mentioned splitting lanes at speed on the highway. Just like most poorly informed cops, you cannot apply, firstly an incorrect interpretation, to secondly, an absurd future probable outcome. Cop - "if i dont book you sonny, for what is a questionable offence, tomorrow eeeeeeveryone will be wheelieing down the 401 between cars." It is precisely that type of thinking that is what I am referring to. I have always maintained certain forms of filtering are legal in the HTA and have detailed the specific circumstances in which it is legal. However both you and a fair few cops have incorrect and sweeping generalizations. Based on everything you have said, and your inflexible thinking and lack of creativity, I highly doubt either you are lawyer, or that you're a good one. Aside from your high and mighty persona, your "advice" seems more like an attempt to boost your ego rather than be helpful.

The advice from others...."whether it is legal or not, I am not going to do it...." is better advice. The advice you give is just plain wrong. But you pip in like some sort of self appointed authority with lazy and poorly referenced support, followed by flawed understanding of (issued for public understanding) laws, claiming only you have the ability to understand the level of English therein.

In my last post I resorted to exaggeration to mirror your absurd thinking, and you didn't disappoint in return...you rebutted with even further exaggeration by suggesting my interpretation allows for driving a car down the 401 on the line. BTW I would like to see you change lanes on the 401 in a car and not drive on the line for period of time or distance. Next time measure it and tell us how long a distance is acceptable to "drive on the line". Between you and those uninformed cops "IT IS ILLEGAL TO DRIVE ON THE LINE". Those are the very cops you happen to agree interpret 154 correctly. It must mean you never change lanes on the highway, because it is also not unfeasible to stay in 1 lane the entire time! You don't really need to leave the slow lane....just on and off that's it. I give you some grace here, Ill let you change lanes from the on ramp to the slow lane, but after that I'll nail you for "driving on the line" or "failure to remain entirely in your lane". Driver's discretion to judge when it is safe or not feasible to remain in one lane, what's that?!?! It's not like it is written into the law explicitly is it?!?!? Oh wait IT IS!!!!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

A) there is no law that says you cant drive on the line. Neither you nor short hand jotting / attempted paraphrasing cop can change that.

B) a bike on the line is not the same as a car on the line...hence my hyperbole about how YOU and cops incorrectly view all vehicles as massive hunkers.

C) At no point has anyone in this thread mentioned splitting lanes at speed on the highway. Just like most poorly informed cops, you cannot apply, firstly an incorrect interpretation, to secondly, an absurd future probable outcome. Cop - "if i dont book you sonny, for what is a questionable offence, tomorrow eeeeeeveryone will be wheelieing down the 401 between cars." It is precisely that type of thinking that is what I am referring to. I have always maintained certain forms of filtering are legal in the HTA and have detailed the specific circumstances in which it is legal. However both you and a fair few cops have incorrect and sweeping generalizations. Based on everything you have said, and your inflexible thinking and lack of creativity, I highly doubt either you are lawyer, or that you're a good one. Aside from your high and mighty persona, your "advice" seems more like an attempt to boost your ego rather than be helpful.

The advice from others...."whether it is legal or not, I am not going to do it...." is better advice. The advice you give is just plain wrong. But you pip in like some sort of self appointed authority with lazy and poorly referenced support, followed by flawed understanding of (issued for public understanding) laws, claiming only you have the ability to understand the level of English therein.

In my last post I resorted to exaggeration to mirror your absurd thinking, and you didn't disappoint in return...you rebutted with even further exaggeration by suggesting my interpretation allows for driving a car down the 401 on the line. BTW I would like to see you change lanes on the 401 in a car and not drive on the line for period of time or distance. Next time measure it and tell us how long a distance is acceptable to "drive on the line". Between you and those uninformed cops "IT IS ILLEGAL TO DRIVE ON THE LINE". Those are the very cops you happen to agree interpret 154 correctly. It must mean you never change lanes on the highway, because it is also not unfeasible to stay in 1 lane the entire time! You don't really need to leave the slow lane....just on and off that's it. I give you some grace here, Ill let you change lanes from the on ramp to the slow lane, but after that I'll nail you for "driving on the line" or "failure to remain entirely in your lane". Driver's discretion to judge when it is safe or not feasible to remain in one lane, what's that?!?! It's not like it is written into the law explicitly is it?!?!? Oh wait IT IS!!!!

154 (1).

Refusal to drive in a lane doesn't imply that it is impossible to do so.

 

[awyala]

154 (1).

Refusal to drive in a lane doesn't imply that it is impossible to do so.

Read 154 again. It states the driver has the discretion to NOT entirely drive within a lane if first determined safe to do otherwise. 154 is essentially a law governing how to ordinarily drive and change lanes. Ordinarily you should be in a marked lane but you are permitted to depart from this when the driver determines it is safe to do so. Ordinarily I drive in a lane, entirely, but at red light stopped traffic circumstances, I safely pass 2 to 50 cars. And I am completely entitled to do so as long as I don't breach a few other HTA laws that we have discussed.

And please spare me the 172 nonsense, in that case my speed, relative to my proximity must be such that it becomes unsafe, not merely that I am "too close". Speed is a factor even with 172.

154 actually ALLOWS driving on the line or out of the lane, contrary to ignorant cop short-hand cheat sheets. Fact is they are not trained in the HTA itself, but rather a summarised quick reference codex! That codex, summarises 154 1a as "failure to drive in a marked lane" which is actually woefully wrong!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Read 154 again. It states the driver has the discretion to NOT entirely drive within a lane if first determined safe to do otherwise. 154 is essentially a law governing how to ordinarily drive and change lanes. Ordinarily you should be in a marked lane but you are permitted to depart from this when the driver determines it is safe to do so. Ordinarily I drive in a lane, entirely, but at red light stopped traffic circumstances, I safely pass 2 to 50 cars. And I am completely entitled to do so as long as I don't breach a few other HTA laws that we have discussed.

And please spare me the 172 nonsense, in that case my speed, relative to my proximity must be such that it becomes unsafe, not merely that I am "too close". Speed is a factor even with 172.

154 actually ALLOWS driving on the line or out of the lane, contrary to ignorant cop short-hand cheat sheets. Fact is they are not trained in the HTA itself, but rather a summarised quick reference codex! That codex, summarises 154 1a as "failure to drive in a marked lane" which is actually woefully wrong!

No, it doesn't. It enables the driver to move from the lane, once it has been ascertained that it is safe to do so.

 

[awyala]

No, it doesn't. It enables the driver to move from the lane, once it has been ascertained by the driver that it is safe to do so.

corrected.

There ya go! We are now getting somewhere, now that we can agree it DOESNT mean "failure to drive in a marked lane". Which is what is WRITTEN as my charge next to the HTA 154 1A clause. These 2 statements are in contradiction, further highlighting the cop's lack of understanding of the HTA with respect to "filtering" in stopped traffic.

 

[Major]

In danger of getting flamed, I am going to copy a post from another "filtering/lane splitting thread". Let the games continue....

The laws on this matter are ambiguous and vague (just like many HTA rules). It allows the police to use judgement and discretion (whether they use J&D well is another post/rant). This is why we have Judges and Courts; which is to determine if the charges fall within the law.

There is a very easy way to settle this issue. To all the supporters of lane splitting or filtering (your term or maneuver); please do the action beside marked police cruisers. If there is a volume of riders that continue doing this in different jurisdictions, and do not get charged, it will lay weight to your position.

If the you are charged, since you feel so strongly in your position of legality, you can be sure the charges will not be upheld in court. You will have created precedent case law making these actions legal without having to go through the provincial legislator and politicians. I am sure the other supporters will contribute to the legal costs of defending the case as they have a vested interest in the successful outcome.

It will also be helpful to the nay-sayers (I am using the term neutrally, please no flames), if you post your actions and outcomes here. If they are successful, then some will become supporters.

So, what's it going to be????

Put up or shut up?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

corrected.

There ya go! We are now getting somewhere, now that we can agree it DOESNT mean "failure to drive in a marked lane". Which is what is WRITTEN as my charge next to the HTA 154 1A clause. These 2 statements are in contradiction, further highlighting the cop's lack of understanding of the HTA with respect to "filtering" in stopped traffic.

Except that you aren't following the first tenet, of driving as much as possible completely within one lane. You're creating the situation by ignoring one part of the statute so that you can later point to it as justification for the use of another part of the statute. You create the situation, you break the law.

 

[OpenGambit]

B) a bike on the line is not the same as a car on the line...

The HTA doesn't agree with you. a vehicle is a vehicle.

 

[OpenGambit]

In danger of getting flamed, I am going to copy a post from another "filtering/lane splitting thread". Let the games continue....

The laws on this matter are ambiguous and vague (just like many HTA rules). It allows the police to use judgement and discretion (whether they use J&D well is another post/rant). This is why we have Judges and Courts; which is to determine if the charges fall within the law.

There is a very easy way to settle this issue. To all the supporters of lane splitting or filtering (your term or maneuver); please do the action beside marked police cruisers. If there is a volume of riders that continue doing this in different jurisdictions, and do not get charged, it will lay weight to your position.

If the you are charged, since you feel so strongly in your position of legality, you can be sure the charges will not be upheld in court. You will have created precedent case law making these actions legal without having to go through the provincial legislator and politicians. I am sure the other supporters will contribute to the legal costs of defending the case as they have a vested interest in the successful outcome.

It will also be helpful to the nay-sayers (I am using the term neutrally, please no flames), if you post your actions and outcomes here. If they are successful, then some will become supporters.

So, what's it going to be????

Put up or shut up?

The issue is that most of the people that seem to think that filtering is legal are also bad representative plaintiffs. You are far more likely to end up with another Bunda ( see sticky ), than a favourable decision.

prior to Bunda, filtering was arguably legal in Ontario ( given particular situations ). Now its messed.

Clarity isn't necessary a good thing, neither is trying to force a decision on the law. Prosecutors tend to drop cases that are ambigious or borderline, but if people start doing it to try to get a decision, you are likely to get a bad one because the Crown is going to do its research on something like this.

 

[awyala]

The HTA doesn't agree with you. a vehicle is a vehicle.

Um yes. That's a moot point in what you are trying to establish. I am not saying a motorbike is not a vehicle. What I am saying is YOU cannot assume every vehicle has the same dimensions or nomenclature just because it is classified as a vehicle in the HTA. Size, speed, inertia, volume, all are factors in determining the subjective "safety" factor!

Just because it is classed as a vehicle doesn't mean it performs or is characterized by the same qualities as a 2 ton SUV. A motorbike on the line doesn't present the same situation as an SUV driving on the line, neither in you hyperbolic 401 "gambit", nor in a FILTERING situation.

True to your name. Nice try slick.

 

[awyala]

Except that you aren't following the first tenet, of driving as much as possible completely within one lane. You're creating the situation by ignoring one part of the statute so that you can later point to it as justification for the use of another part of the statute. You create the situation, you break the law.

I did follow the first tenant....and I repeat...I NORMALLY DRIVE ENTIRELY WITHIN A LANE, at which time I may come upon a red light stopped traffic situation with a multi (LINE) situation. At which time I ASSESS THE SAFETY OF THE SITUATION and then proceed to leave my lane or share a lane PROVIDING THERE IS ROOM AND IT IS SAFE AND ALL TRAFFIC IS STOPPED, and I pass upwards of 30 stopped cars (for example).

I strictly adhere to the first tenant, because I do not drive on the line as a normal part of my everyday driving at lengthy casual stretches! I drive on the line or cross the line to make a pass.......as is ALLOWED!

Where in any of that do you get the impression I don't normally drive in a lane? You think I filter non-stop or just ride on the line in normal moving traffic, on the road, highway or in any given situation.

I don't break the law when I create a pass, that is not "creating a situation, you break the law" as you put it.